Experimental Physiology Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Experimental Physiology 93.2 pp 288-295
DOI: 10.1113/expphysiol.2007.039677
© The Physiological Society 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
93/2/288    most recent
expphysiol.2007.039677v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Doherty, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by McNicholas, W. T.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Doherty, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by McNicholas, W. T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Respiratory

The human genioglossus response to negative airway pressure: stimulus timing and route of delivery

 Liam S. Doherty1, John P. Cullen1, Philip Nolan1,2 and Walter T. McNicholas1,2

1 Respiratory Sleep Disorders Unit, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland 2 Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Ireland

The genioglossus reflex response to sudden onset pulses of negative airway pressure (NAP) in humans is reported to occur more commonly at end rather than onset of expiration when delivered via a mouthpiece. We examined whether this response was modulated by the route of stimulus delivery throughout the respiratory cycle. The genioglossus surface EMG (GGsEMG) response to NAP delivered randomly throughout the respiratory cycle was measured in a set of experiments: (i) 40 stimuli of NAP at –5, –7.5 and –10 cmH2O applied to eight healthy, awake, supine males via nose-mask; and (ii) 60 stimuli of –7.5 cmH2O NAP applied to 15 subjects via both nose-mask and mouthpiece in random order. Despite similar pressure changes being detected in the epiglottis during both routes of stimulus delivery, far lower pressure changes were measured at the nasal choanae during mouthpiece compared with nose-mask delivery. There were no significant differences between the responses during any phase of respiration, nor when NAP was delivered via nose-mask or mouthpiece. We conclude that the sensitivity of the GGsEMG response to NAP in humans does not vary significantly with phase of respiration or route of breathing.

(Received 25 July 2007; accepted after revision 12 October 2008; first published online 19 October 2007)
Corresponding author W. T. McNicholas: Department of Respiratory Medicine, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. Email: walter.mcnicholas{at}ucd.ie






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the The Physiological Society.